300 People Shot Every Day In The Usa.
- Thread starter Essex1
- Start date
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
It's a big country with A LOT of guns.
Perhaps if we killed that many in the UK with electrical wiring and systems, then something would be done to police it! :tongue in cheek
There were some interviews after the last shooting ( by a Brit apparently ) I can understand the feelings of ordinary law abiding citizens , even the school ma'am had a weapon in her handbag ( US. purse)
With so many guns around everyone feels the need to protect themselves from the bad guys.
With so many guns around everyone feels the need to protect themselves from the bad guys.
police it like america polices guns, by doing nothing, yep, sounds like we are already therePerhaps if we killed that many in the UK with electrical wiring and systems, then something would be done to police it!
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 17,023
- Reaction score
- 47
Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot. Eighty-six of them die: 30 are murdered, 53 kill themselves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in a police intervention, the Brady Campaign reports.
So what? There is evidence that murder rates remain the same if you remove firearms. Firearms are relatively easy to acquire - even if you ban them completely.
The suicides would find another way to kill themselves.
If someone runs from the police they deserve to be shot. Quite happy with that.
The 2 accidents concern me - more education needed. Some American views on gun safety are rather lax. I support the use of any means necessary if defending your home.
So what? There is evidence that murder rates remain the same if you remove firearms. Firearms are relatively easy to acquire - even if you ban them completely.
The suicides would find another way to kill themselves.
If someone runs from the police they deserve to be shot. Quite happy with that.
The 2 accidents concern me - more education needed. Some American views on gun safety are rather lax. I support the use of any means necessary if defending your home.
I think what is worrying them is the loonytune or religious nutter opening fire in schools & cinemas etc.
My brother was posted to Flagstaff , Arizona some years back ..... he's driving one of their cars on a deserted desert road , puts his foot down , the usual gas guzzling 5000 HP engine is ticking over at 70 MPH when he's pulled over by the Highway Patrol . The speed limit is 50 MPH .
What worried him most was the officer's right hand on his gun all the time .
My brother was posted to Flagstaff , Arizona some years back ..... he's driving one of their cars on a deserted desert road , puts his foot down , the usual gas guzzling 5000 HP engine is ticking over at 70 MPH when he's pulled over by the Highway Patrol . The speed limit is 50 MPH .
What worried him most was the officer's right hand on his gun all the time .
So the 200 people that are shot but do not die do not need to be considered in your arguement? If a police shoots a man in the back as he runs away how can that be justifiable force?
Where is the evidence that murder rates remain the same if you remove guns? As far as I am aware the USA has the highest murder rate in the developed world. Do you have a link to back your arguement up?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 17,023
- Reaction score
- 47
To my mind yes. The police are there to enforce our laws and protect our rights as citizens. If you turn and run from a police officer (knowingly) then you should be automatically guilty of a crime and I'm happy shooting that person becomes appropriate. Can you give me 1 single reason where an honest man would run?
There is a large degree of circumstantial evidence, yes:
First, let's look at the relationship between gun laws and violence in general.
The former Soviet Union's extremely stringent gun controls, successfully implemented and enforced by a police state, did not keep the nation, and successor states like Russia, from posting murder rates from 1965-1999 that far outstripped the rest of the developed world [sources: Kates and Mauser ; Kessler ; Pridemore ; Pridemore]. The killers in question did not obtain illegal firearms -- they simply employed other weapons [source: Kleck].
In the 1960s and early 1970s, murders committed by Soviet citizens -- again, almost entirely without guns -- equaled or surpassed the lives taken violently in the gun-saturated United States. By the early 1990s, the murder rate in Russia trebled the American rate, which had by then leveled off, then dropped significantly (more on that later) [sources: Kates and Mauser ; Pridemore ; Pridemore].
On the other hand, Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all countries with heavy gun ownership, posted low murder rates in the early 2000s compared to "gun-light" developed nations. In 2002, for example, Germany's murder rate was one-ninth that of Luxembourg, where the law prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare [source: Kates and Mauser].
Statistics within countries paint a similar picture: Areas of higher gun ownership rates correlate with areas of lower rates of violent crime, and areas with strict gun laws correlate with areas high in violent crime [source: Malcolm].
Does this mean that guns prevent crime? Not necessarily. After all, the most violent areas are also the most likely to pass stringent gun laws. It's a chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, the violent crime or the gun laws? There's no simple answer. It does appear that high gun-ownership density does not imply high rates of violent crime, and that stringent gun controls do not reduce murder rates across the board [sources: Kates and Mauser ; Liptak ; Luo]. However, the data involved in these assessments are often mismatched and tricky to compare.
not quite gun related, but along the same lines... there was a biker died up here the other day - crashed into a barrier after failing to stop for police. im not saying he deserved to die, but if he had stopped then he would be alive. fortunately, in his case it was only the biker that was injured in the crash (died a few days later) and not some innocent person
Because they are scared. I ran away from loads of police growing up. Mostly for playing football against people's walls. Thank God I do not live in your world or me and all my friends would have been shot dead as 10 year olds.
there is a difference between a 10 year old kicking a ball against a wall and an adult running from police for no apparent reason, or after being caught doing something they know they shouldnt have done
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 17,023
- Reaction score
- 47
You know as well as I do, I'm not suggesting shooting children. If you are suspected of a serious crime and you run, then I do think you deserve to suffer the consequences. Whilst it is not perfect, I think we have the finest judicial system in the world. The honest man has almost nothing to fear.
Agreed. The judicial system that says innocent until proven guilty by a court. Not a police with a gun.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 17,023
- Reaction score
- 47
But of you run from the system, you may escape and avoid justice being done. Hence I am supportive of such action when people attempt to evade capture.
If you wave a plastic gun around a bank - you deserve to be shot just as you do with a proper gun.
If you wave a plastic gun around a bank - you deserve to be shot just as you do with a proper gun.
Now that I agree with. Your earlier posts of shooting people that run away in the back I do not.
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
Is taking a spur to a slightly lower level possible?- Latest: SPECIAL LOCATION
-
-
-
